Allowed

Mahesh v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Apr 2019CRL OP/2160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 364(A) and 342 of IPC. The Court observed that a compromise was reached between the tenant petitioners and the landlord respondent, leading to withdrawal of related civil and monetary complaints. The Court held the matter settled and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.600 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed and connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Mahesh Vs State Rep by — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.04.2019 CORAM:

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.2160 of 2019 and CRL.M.P.No.1367 of 2019

¶3

Mahesh

¶4

J.Dinesh

¶5

... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station,
Chennai. .... 1 st Respondent/Complainant
2. Ramesh Ramanathan

¶8

...2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.600 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.Arockia Selvaraj I. For Respondents For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No appearance O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.600 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offence under Sections 364(A) and 342 of IPC.

¶11

It is seen that the petitioners are tenants and the second respondent is the landlord of the disputed premises, in which there was a civil suit in O.S.No. 2371 of 2014 pending before the learned VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. In the said said suit both the parties are entered into compromise and also filed a Memorandum of Understanding, which reads as follows :-

¶12

"1. The party of the first party shall

¶13

a) Withdraw the above said private compliant filed u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the 2nd party before

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

the Hon'ble Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.5981/14 within days from the date of this Memorandum Understanding.

¶16

b) Withdraw the said criminal case viz., FIR in Crime No.600/2014 on the file of J6Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai or shall give utmost support in quashing the said FIR including filing of supporting affidavit or compromise memo before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.

¶17

The Party of the second part shall shall withdraw the case which filed against the 1st party before Hon'ble VIII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.2371/14 within days from the date of this Memorandum of Understanding.

¶18

I on this day the April, 2016 have received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) from Mr.Ramesh Ramanathan the defendant herein, and hereby handover the possession of the "second floor at No.4 Officers colony, vijayanagar extn., Velachery - 600 042" whole heartedly.

¶19

It is agreed by both the parties that if either party violate the said condition(s), the affected party shall sue against the other party towards compensation and damages."

¶20

In view of the above Memorandum of Understanding between them, the entire matter has been settled and the petitioners also vacated from the disputed premises and handed over the same to the second respondent. In the said Memorandum of Understanding, the second respondent undertakes to withdraw the complaint in Crime No.600 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent. Considering the above fact and circumstances, the pendency of FIR would not serve any purpose and to meet the ends of justices, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.600 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

rts

¶28

¶29

The Inspector of Police,

¶30

J6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

+2cc to Mr.K.Sundararaj, Advocate sr.35415
CRL.O.P.No.2160 of 2019
and CRL.M.P.No.1367 of 2019
GJ-II(CO)
nr 16/05/2019

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mahesh v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duraisamy, Aged 45 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Geetha Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Jagadish C Bojani, M/a 70 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Shanta Vs R.Nalini

Poyyathappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.Rukmani (Aged 60 Years) Vs S.Vandhana